simon babu vs republic 1981 tzca 19 6 august 1981

I N THE C O U R T OF A P P E A L OF T A N Z A N I A AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: Mustafa. J.A., Makame, J.A. and Kisanga. J.A. ) C R I M I N A L A P P E A L NO. 25 OF 1901 B E T W E E N SIMON BABU . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELLANT A N D THE RE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT ( A p p e a l f r o m the c o n v i c t i o n an d s e n t e n c e o f t h e H i g h C o u r t of T a n z a n i a at M o s h i ) ( M a g a n g a , J.) d a t e d the 2 4 t h d a y of Mar c h , 1981, in Criminal S e s s i o n s C a s e No. 11 of 1980 J U D G M E N T OF THE C O U R T MUSTAFA, J.A.: I n tho l a t e a f t e r n o o n , w h e n A l o t t o h a d r e t u r n e d h o m e f r o m g r azing his cattle, and was sitting with his wife P . W.l Bertha and some of his c h i l d r e n including P.W.2 Aishi just outside his house, the appellant, a cc omp an ie d by several persons, came upon Alotto, and w i t h o u t u t t e r i n g a word, attacked him with a .pick­ axe w h i c h the a p p e l l a n t w a s c a r r y i n g , as a r e s u l t of w h i c h A l o t t o died. The d e c e a s e d w a s s t r u c k o n the h e a d w i t h t h e pickaxe which r e s u l t e d i n a s k u l l f r a c t u r e c a u s i n g v i t a l d a m a g e and trumature of the brain, and that was the cause of death. B.W.l saw t h e a t t a c k , so d i d P . W . 2 . P . W . 5 L e l o , a n e i g h b o u r of th e deceased, in response to a r e p o r t b r o u g h t to h i m o n th e m a t e r i a l d a y b y a c h i l d of the d e ceased o f t h e a t t a c k o n th e d e c e a s e d , w e n t t o w a r d s the d e c e a s e d ' s house with a hoe in his hand. He m e t t h e a p p e l l a n t on the way, c o m i n g f r o m t h e d i r e c t i o n of the d e c e a s e d ' s h o u s e . and The a p p e l l a n t ' s c l o t h e s had m a r k s / ’ -, s t a i n s of b l o o d o n them. W h e n P.W.5 asked t h e a p p e l l a n t a b o u t the b l o o d s t a i n s , th e a p p e l l a n t t u r n e d o n P . W . 5 and t h r e a t e n e d to k i l l P . W . 5 . . - 2 - There was a brief struggle between P.W.5 an d th e a p p e l l a n t , and t h e n the a p p e l l a n t r a n o f f to o n e d i r e c t i o n , after verbally t h r e a t e n i n g to b u r n P « W . 5 ' s t h a t c h e d h o u s e . .It w a s i n e v i d e n c e t h a t a f e w d a y s b e f o r e t h i s i n c i d e n t the appellant had been brought before a court on a complaint from the deceased. T h e d e c e a s e d h a d c o m p l a i n e d t h a t the a p p e l l a n t h a d a t t a c k e d the d e c e a s e d ' s c h i l d r e n w hile they were grazing. The appellant was convicted, a n d o r d e r e d to p a y a f i n e of shs. 4 6 8 / ­ cr in d e f a u l t three months' imprisonment. The c ourt order was m a d e on 26th March, 1979, and the f a t a l attack: or. the d e c e a s e d took p l a c e on 30th March, 1979. The appellant m a d e an u n s w o r n statement and c a l l e d n o w i t n e s s e s . He s a i d o n t h e m a t e r i a l d a y as h e w a s a p p r o a c h i n g h i s h o u s e o n h i s b i c y c l e h e m e t t h e d e c e a s e d w h o w a s c a r r y i n g a sine. Th e d e c e a s e d refused to g i v e w a y to h i s b i c y le. A q u a r r e l e?’sued a n d th e d e c e a s e d c u t h i m w i t h a sime. The d e c e a s e d ' s w i f n P . W . l t h e n j o i n e d the f r a y with a pickaxe. The a p p e l l a n t m a n a g e d to s n a t c h the pickaxe a n d s t r u c k the d e c e a s e d w i t h it. The a p p e l l a n t produ c e d , a h o s p i t a l t r e a t m e n t sh e e t . However, t he s a i d sheet me ntioned s o m e ol d w o u n d s a n d d i d n o t a t a l l s s u p p o r t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t h e w a s c u t by the d e c e a s e d . P.W.5 i n h i s t e s t i m o n y h a d a l s o s t a t e d t h a t o n th e m a t e r i a l d a y h e h a d s e e n t h e a p p e l l a n t p a s s i n g by P . W . 5 ' s shamba with a pickaxe, s h o r t l y b e f o r e the d e c e a s e d ' s c h i l d c a m e to r e p o r t to h i m of the a t t a c k on the deceased. So t h e p i c k a x e w a s in t h e possession of t h e a p p e l l a n t before th e i n c i d e n t ; he d i d n o t s n a t c h it f r o m F.W.i. T h e r e i s a l s o t h e e v i d e n c e of P . W . 4 Br u n o , a police officer. He visited the s c e n e of the c r i m e o n the d a y f o l l o w i n g the f a t a l attack, a n d w i t h the h e l p of the a p p e l l a n t , d r e w a s k e t c h p l a n of the scene. F r o m t he d e c e a s e d ' s h o u s e to th e a p p e l l a n t ' s h o u s e ............. /3 w a s a d i s t a n c e o f 190 y a r d s - He n o t i c e d b l o o d o n the g r o u n d , a b o u t t h r e e p a c e s . f r o m the d e c e a s e d ' s h o u s o . That clearly showed t h a t the d e c e a s e d w a s a t t a c k e d j u s t outside his own house, no t n e a r t h e h o u s e of t he a p p e l l a n t a b o u t 190 y a r d s away. T h e t r i a l j u d g e a c c e p t e d t h e e v i d e n c e g i v e n b y the p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s a n d r e j e c t e d the a c c o u n t g i v e n b y th e appellant,, We also think that the p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s were truthful and reliable. We are satis fi ed that the a t t a c k o n th e d e c e a s e d w a s u n p r o v o k e d and d eliberate. W e f i n d no m e r i t in the a p p e a l w h i c h is d i s m i s s e d . D A T E D a t D A R E S S A L A A M t h i s 6 t h d a y of A u g u s t , 1981. A. M U S T A F A J U S T I C E OF A P P E A L L. Mo M A K A M E JU ST I C E OF APPEAL R. H. K I S A N G A J U S T I C E OF a PP E A L I certify ■ t h a t this is a t r u e c o p y of V" T J. L. MIJA L U S A N Y A ' SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR